Bozeman City Study Commission Public Hearing on Charter Amendments – June 18, 2026
Bozeman City Study Commission Public Hearing on Charter Amendments – June 18, 2026
The Bozeman City Study Commission held a public hearing on June 18, 2026, beginning at 5:30 PM, to receive input on the tentative report and proposed amendments to the city charter. The meeting included a consent calendar, updates from commissioners, extensive public testimony from approximately 20 speakers, and discussion of a voter engagement plan. The commission approved a $60,000 personnel contract and $65,000 for voter engagement, set a public comment deadline of June 26, and scheduled future meetings for July 15, 23 (tentative), 30, and August 6 for final adoption.
Consent Calendar
- The consent agenda was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Public Comments & Testimony
- City Manager Chuck Wynn urged clarity on what belongs in a charter vs. policy. He expressed concerns that Section 2.04 (compensation) could subject elected officials to wage/hour laws, Section 3.03 (acting city manager) is overly prescriptive, and Section 8.04 (INCO) gives INCO more status than other advisory boards with "shall" language and requires a full-time staff member, which may conflict with NLUPA. He requested specific written recommendations.
- Noah Tembruck criticized the appointment process (citing the Emma Bodie appointment), argued for stronger public input during crises, and supported keeping INCO in the charter. He noted that 73% of Bozeman is protected by CCRs, suggesting that only 28% neighborhood representation is not a coincidence.
- Susan Hinkins supported the neighborhood association provisions but found the compensation algorithm too prescriptive and ill-defined. She preferred the old charter language letting a board decide salaries.
- Emily Mason (INCO Chair) thanked the commission for strengthening Article 8 and asked for a moment of silence for a tragic accident involving first responders.
- Mark Campanelli (Bogert Park Neighborhood Association president, speaking for himself) noted contradictions in Article 8 language between Section 8.02 ("may include but are not limited to neighborhood associations") and later sections requiring inclusion, and advocated for limited government and retention of rights to the people.
- Daniel Cardi supported Article 8 and INCO, but opposed the current compensation board composition (including two commissioners and the city CFO). He proposed a board of disinterested parties selected by lottery.
- Mary Bateson suggested that if the amended charter fails, its recommendations (Exhibit F) should be forwarded to the city commission for consideration.
- Esther Fishbaugh (property owner outside city limits) argued compensation board should exclude anyone with city contracts or financial interest. She preferred ward-based elections where only ward residents vote for their representative.
- Richard Bacher (INCO Secretary/Treasurer) supported keeping Article 8 and making INCO a budget line item.
- Lynn Paul praised the study group's public engagement but called for more specificity in Article 8 on two-way communication, transparency, and accountability.
- Andrew Thomas (Gallatin Valley Sentinel) presented survey results: 611 respondents; low confidence in city government; strong support for ward-based elections with residency voting requirements; majority favor mayor as presiding officer (not executive), a four-year mayor term, term limits, and increased commission size conditional on wards; majority believe commissioners should be salaried but not employees; many oppose increasing pay further. He noted that the study commission's survey data request remains unfulfilled.
- Emily Talego expressed gratitude for the commission's work and encouraged balancing responsiveness with long-term charter vision.
- Laithie Poole questioned ward boundary drawing by the commission (fear of gerrymandering) and opposed the compensation formula slaved to median income without entrepreneurial risk.
- Trish Freheim asked why sub-options fail if the charter fails (per MCA) and suggested putting ballot language first in materials. She recommended using "current" instead of "existing" and praised the ballot clarity.
- Natsuki Nakamura (Economic Vitality Board member, speaking personally) asked for clarity on ward definitions, highlighted that ward boundary changes cannot disqualify a sitting commissioner, and raised transition issues with staggered terms and potential disincentive for renters to run due to residency requirements.
- Katie Adams (Gallatin Valley Sentinel) recommended changing ward boundary drawing to an independent advisory board (citing Montana Constitution Article 5, Section 14), adding "compact, contiguous" requirements preserving neighborhood boundaries, and fixing a conflict in Section 2.06 on mayor vacancy succession.
Discussion Items
- Voter Engagement Plan: Tor Goodmanson and Aaron Coursey (Dan Geld) presented three tiers of engagement: Active Electorate ($64,000 at $1.50 per voter from last municipal election), Active Voter ($110,000 at $1.50 per registered voter), and Transformative ($220,000 at $3 per voter). The remaining budget after the $60,000 personnel contract (approved on consent) was approximately $100,000. After discussion, a motion was made to approve $65,000 for active electorate engagement, requiring Dan Geld to present a detailed schedule and sample materials at the July 15 meeting. The motion passed 4–1 (with one abstention).
- Future Meeting Schedule: The commission discussed adding meetings to address public comments. They confirmed meetings on July 15, July 23 (reserved if needed), July 30, and August 6 (final adoption). Public comment deadline for written submissions is June 26.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Agenda approved unanimously.
- $60,000 Personnel Contract approved (previously on consent).
- $65,000 Voter Engagement approved for Dan Geld, with a detailed plan and materials due by July 15.
- Public Comment Deadline: June 26, 2026.
- Commission Homework: Members to send "what I heard" summaries to Mike Moss for consolidation.
- Charter Finalization: Final adoption of the report and ballot language scheduled for August 6, 2026. Ballot due to county by August 10.
- Additional Meetings: July 15 (next), July 23 (reserved if needed), July 30, August 6.
Meeting Transcript
Like it's frowned upon for us to use uh plastic water bottles now because we have you know our sustainability rules and we're putting like bottle filling stations when we remodel this building. Is that the other one? But this is your two-minute warning. We will start in two minutes. See what you're talking about. Okay, uh, I think that's what we have to do with the meeting that's that's like a need to make a lot of the smaller versions. Yeah, it's just like there's a picture of the picture. Yeah, that's what we need to do. One minute morning, please keep talking. You don't want to sit in silence. Carson's like church here though. Like no one's in the front row. Did you bite someone last time we had a meeting or something? I did, I did. I'm sorry. Yeah. I once had a speaking engagement and everybody sat back like that and let's start it off by saying, I'm having trouble speaking. If you could come to the front row, everybody moved to the front and then I started talking normally. They were ticked. Carson is five seconds. Just do it. Do it. I'll call to order the Bozeman City Study Commission meeting of June eighteenth, twenty twenty-six, at five PM. Five thirty PM. If you're able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. We'll follow up with a moment of silence for which you may be seated if you like. I played allegiance. Thank you very much, and welcome everyone. To this meeting, the primary subject of which is the tentative report and changes in the existing charter. Um hopefully you all came prepared to give us some input or some thoughts or just to watch whatever uh whatever works. First item on the second item on the agenda is changes to the agenda. The one change we're gonna make since this is mostly a public hearing and mostly about us listening to you, is I'm gonna move public comment to right after we get rid of our uh regular business to consent agenda and correspondence or study commission update. Then we'd dive right in and um we'll start our session then with a brief um summary of what we've done so far, and then um the floor is yours. Uh there are some people online who will uh want to speak, no doubt as well. And um I'm toying with the idea. I want you to all think about it because we're talking about an entire document, actually, two documents. Should we expand the time from three minutes to four minutes or five? And that would depend partly on how many people are gonna uh talk. Um, so um sort of have in mind what you think is right, and I'll probably do a quick poll at the last minute uh before we start. I'm thinking right now I'm thinking four minutes um would do the job for everybody, and um we'll go from there. All right, consent agenda. Is there any public comment on the consent agenda? Good. Carson, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented. I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, so indicate by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Next item on the agenda is correspondence or study commission update.
openpublica.com